Re: Patch for sC++ to GNU C++.

[Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> Mark Mitchell <mark@markmitchell.com> writes:

 > In particular, we have to learn about these extensions an bear them in
 > mind whenever we make changes.  As an example, take the g++
 > `signature' extension.  I must keep signatures in mind whenever I make
 > changes, and I have sometimes broken signatures without breaking
 > anything else simply because I forgot to bear in mind various quirks
 > of signatures and their implementation.

Me too.  I've been considering removing signatures for that reason, and
that is why I've been hesitant to accept sC++.

 > Obviously, these opinions (both the triviality of `restrict' and the
 > aversion to C++ extensions) are my own, and represent nothing about
 > the will of the EGCS steering committee, or that of the C++
 > front-end maintainer.

But, as it happens, I share them.

Jason